Talk:SkyOS/previous discussion

Fanboyism

I've tried to counteract some of the insane fanboyism here. This isn't a portal to boast about an OS's supposed capabilities - if you're going to do that, you MUST list the downsides as well. And SkyOS sure as hell has its downsides too.

Kiand 00:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Criticism

User:216.109.205.62 removed the "criticism" section with a comment "Removed criticism, extremely opinionated, no factual basis." The section sounds pretty NPOV to me. --Diberri | Talk 06:16, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to give this article a complete rewrite. The user Heyxdes who is editing it is a team member/employee/whatever, I'm not sure, of SkyOS. This article was rewritten by SkyOS Forums users in an attempt to get free advertising,

It'll be a bit to the opposite direction when I rewrite it - last time I used SkyOS it failed completely on all my hardware, and in the interim I've been bugged by the "team" to join them because I'm a BeOS developer...

Kiand 07:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone feels like doing the reweite, please do. I'm a bit busy now, but I'll be able to complete it around 4:00 UTC.

Kiand 07:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm attempting to make whats already here a bit more neutral, but you'd be better to do the rewrite, I only have a passing familiarity with SkyOS from reading OSNews occasionally. As it stands, I feel I've atleast given the article some sembilance of neutrality, but it certainly suffers from the sin of omision. Shane King 07:39, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please stop lying

What is this nonsense you keep presenting about us trying to "advertise" SkyOS? This is a Wikipedia article. It was started a long time ago, and had very outdated information. I took it upon myself to try and update it as best as possible, and now a few people from our community have helped us out by adding information as well (we are very consumed with working on SkyOS).

I'm not sure who wrote that SkyOS violates the GPL, but that is nothing but a lie, pure and simple. SkyOS, the operating system, uses zero lines of GPL code. Everything has been written from scratch over the course of 8 years. SkyOS does indeed make available some APPLICATIONS that are licensed under the GPL, but that in no way obligates us to make our operating system source code available. We simply are required to make the source code to the applications that we have changed available, which we have done and are happy to continue doing to anyone that is interested in the source. The source will also be included with SkyOS 5.0 Final, directly on the CD.

Another problem, in the criticisms section, it lists that SkyOS has no applications. As seen in the paragraph above, it does, which caused confusion among a few people about GPL. We ported Abiword, Gaim, GIMP, Blender3D, Quake I and II and OpenTTD to SkyOS. We are currently working on a web browser. We wrote a media player to play audio/video. There are also a number of smaller 3rd party applications available. So to say no applications are available is flat-out wrong, and to say we have no web browser just shows that you do not follow our project. If you did, you would know we have been working hard on porting/writing a web browser over the last 2 weeks.

I know that SkyOS being closed-source makes you upset, and that is fine. You're welcome to disagree with our choice. However, it is OUR CHOICE to make. Please do not spread lies about SkyOS and attempt to disparage our reputation with misinformation on Wikipedia.

I'm not upset its closed source. I use a closed source, commercial OS myself.

I am however upset that you're using a wikipedia article to promote a one-sided, rose tinted view of your OS. You develop it, hence you are going to try to make it sound wonderful. Its not wonderful when you view it from beyond the edge - e.g. from using another OS. Currently, I don't give a damn about the future, currently you've got no decent web browser and very few apps. There are suspicions over GPL'ed code, namely because from personal experience I can say its damned hard to get diffs out of yiz. I've also never seen the VLC/AbiWord/etc ports get put back in the main tree.

Kiand 07:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SkyOS does not use ANY GPL'd code. I don't know how I can make this point more clear to you. Obviously since our source is closed you're not going to see it. However, if we just dropped in code from other projects that used GPL code, it would not take very long to notice the similarities. As far as I know, we are not required to put the source code of applications we port back into the main tree of those respective projects. We simply are required to make the code available to people that request it, which we try our best to do (you have to remember, there is one full-time coder, and one part-time coder working on SkyOS and we are EXTREMELY busy, but still do our best to help everyone out and do the right thing).

I don't see SkyOS through rose-tinted glasses, quite the opposite, it is one of my jobs to see SkyOS in the worst light possible, so that we can make changes. I'm not the one with the problem, you are. You simply post "SkyOS has bad hardware support." and make no mention of the fact that this is an on-going project, and we actively add more and more support as time goes on. THAT IS A RELEVANT FACT AND YOU LEFT IT OUT TO MAKE A FALSE POINT. You did the same thing with the web browser, stating that we have a bad browser, while not also mentioning the fact that it is something we are actively engaged in fixing. The original material was neither good nor bad (since it didn't exist). You entered the bad part of it. I balanced it with what we are doing to fix the situation. Now you are saying that that isn't relevant, only your bad information is relevant. I think you need to grab a dictionary and look up the definition for "bias". I don't care at all that you reported we have less than complete hardware support, only a small set of applications, or a sub-par browser, but if you were interested in reporting the truth, and not just your bias, you would also report what is currently being done about the situation, if anything (which MANY things are being done).

You don't seem to get what the problem is here at all. I, for one, don't care if you don't have a browser, if you used GPLd code, or if your hardware support is getting better. I care that this article is biased.

• "Exactly what form this browser will take will be revealed in the near future"
• "development team is also doing their best"
• "they will be given the final product as well"

Promises about soon to be features do not belong here. From the number of people that are complaining about this, it should be clear that there is a problem. I personally agree that SkyOS is deseving of a page reflecting facts about the OS, but that sould focus on what is not what's coming with the next release. In doing some research on SkyOS, I've concluded that you guys have done a Great Thing, and there's no reason for the article not to reflect that, but denying that it's biased will not fix it. jericho4.0 20:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The is no point in saying "A good browser is coming" "good hardware support is coming" etc. They aren't there now and the Wikipedia is not a place for speculation

Also, the article pages are no place for personal mud-slinging, and the articles NPOV is disputed, hence the header.

Kiand 08:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In that case I please wish to know how this SkyOS article is any different from the Linux or BeOS one. The moment you, Kiand, can explain the difference, you might have a point.

--Thom Holwerda

I am not Kiand, but the difference I see is that the Linux article talks about the state of Linux today, not some speculation about what applications might be developed for it in the future. It is also takes a "just the facts, ma'am" to things like the SCO lawsuit, rather than a "people criticise SkyOS for this, but they're completely wrong" attitude this article had before some of my edits.

I have no problem with you pointing out what the good things about SkyOS are from your perspective (so long as they're stated in an objective tone, eg "The developers of SkyOS claim"), infact I encourage it. WHat I can't stand for is any attempt to remove or downplay criticism of SkyOS. The criticisms may not even be true, but the fact that people are making them is reason enough for wikipedia to report them (hopefully in a manner that makes it clear wikipedia does not endorse the criticisms, merely notes that people make them).

I know SkyOS is a product in development. The article already states that. However, you can't use that as an excuse to hide behind when people criticse the product. I'm sympathetic to your view that it will be fixed by the time it's ready for release, but this doesn't excuse the current failings, which wikipedia is oblidged to report. When the final product is released with those shortcomings fixed, then those points can be removed, but to do so before then is just speculation on the future, a practice that an encyclopedia has no right to engage in. Shane King 08:58, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Let's face it-- if this SkyOS article is an "advertisement", then so is the Linux one, the BeOS one, and the Windows one. Seeing the small size of SkyOS, and it's extremely small userbase, it is very difficult to say what it's weaknesses are. Of course SkyOS weaknesses must also be named in this article-- but what other than lack of HW support/applications can the article state? Just as an hypothetical article of Longhorn cannot say anything about Longhorn's potential weaknesses. It all depends on how you look at it. In the BeOS one for example, no mention is made of the biggest weakness of the Be: networking. Yet I do not see anyone altering that.

--Thom Holwerda

People edit articles as their time and interest allows. I don't know enough about BeOS, nor do I care enough about it to bother learning enough, to add information to its article. If its article is poor, it's probably because it's a dead OS that most people no longer care so much about. However, if you feel that the article is poor, and you feel you can improve it, by all means, go ahead and do so. However, to point to it and say "it's bad, so this article can be bad too" is just silly: two wrongs don't make a right. Shane King 09:57, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

You're simply refusing to even listen to what we're saying. You've entered this with the attitude that you are right, and you don't want to even listen to the other side. You posted two shortcomings of SkyOS: lack of hardware support, and lack of applications. That is fine, no one is saying you can't post that. However, to get the full picture, you have to get the other side of the story, which is that both of these points are currently and ongoingly being worked on. As it stood, what you added was an incomplete idea. So we are saying that there is nothing wrong with you printing what you did, but that to get the full picture, you must also print the other side of the story.

Now, as far as the GPL statements goes, that was nothing but a pure fabrication. SkyOS DOES NOT contain any GPL code in the operating system. Printing that in this article is libel. That idea does not have any factual basis, and is no different than including something such as "SkyOS has been accused of eating babies." Its nothing more than an untrue pot-shot by someone who simply does not agree with closed-source software, and wishes to harm our reputation with accusations of GPL violations. The real loser is the OSS community, because one day someone really WILL steal OSS code and use it outside of the GPL specifications, and no one will believe the OSS community, because you have "cried wolf" so many times.

Let me reiterate this again - I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN that the system is closed source. I just know FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE that getting diffs out of yiz is like drawing blood from a stone. I use a closed source OS myself as my main, nay, sole OS. I couldn't care less if SkyOS was commercial, GPL, BSD, or under some licence that meant I had to eat a full paper copy of the source code to be allowed boot it up.

Kiand 15:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"I'm not sure who wrote that SkyOS violates the GPL, but that is nothing but a lie, pure and simple. SkyOS, the operating system, uses zero lines of GPL code. Everything has been written from scratch over the course of 8 years. SkyOS does indeed make available some APPLICATIONS that are licensed under the GPL, but that in no way obligates us to make our operating system source code available. We simply are required to make the source code to the applications that we have changed available, which we have done and are happy to continue doing to anyone that is interested in the source. "

Not necessarily: the GPL provides a special excemption to operating system components: " However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.". This only applies, however, if the applications are not distributed together with the operating system. The GPL is very unambiguous about this: distribution of GPL applications with a closed OS is breaking the GPL. This does not obligate you to GPL your OS, but what it does do is void your license to distribute and modify the GPL applications. Continuing to do so is in breach of copyright law, and as much a crime as if you were distributing 'pirate' copies of a closed-source work.

GPLed applications, even if they depend on a closed OS to run, are perfectly legal as long as:

They include full source (and comply with all other GPL requirements) They are not distributed with the closed OS

I neither know nor care if skyos is distributed with GPL applications or not, but if it is, it is breaking copyright law to distribute it.

lj 16:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

----------

This is taken from the GNU GPL FAQ:

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing.

This caption from the FAQ CLEARLY states that GNU GPL applications can be included alongside proprietary systems, so long as they remain two seperate programs. Gimp, Gaim, Abiword and the other GNU GPL applications available when SkyOS is installed are clearly NOT the same program as SkyOS. The only way that SkyOS could be in violation of the GPL would be if SkyOS included GPL code within the actual OS code, which it does not, in any way, shape, or form.

--------

There is no way you can credibly argue that something ported to an OS is communicating with it at arm's length - apps linked against an operating system communicate via shared memory, system calls, and callbacks. If this were permitted by the GPL, I can't see any form of linking that would be forbidden. Clearly any interpretation of the GPL that permits linking with a GPL-incompatible OS is erroneous.

If SkyOS and its applications were separate and 'communicating at arm's length', you could take a skyos app, and run it on some other operating system. This is clearly impossible, thus the operating system and the application are part of the same work. If distributed on the same media, either the OS must be licensed in a GPL-compatible manner, or the application is being distributed illegally. What this paragraph in the GPL FAQ addresses is the distribution of applications as part of a system (for instance a toolchain), such that the GPL-ed apps act on data produced by non-GPLed apps, but do not depend on anything GPL-incompatible to run.

An example of such permitted behaviour would be to bundle GCC with a closed-source IDE. The IDE and the compiler 'communicate at arm's length': the IDE invokes the compiler from the command-line to compile files, but does not access its memory, pass objects back and forth, etc. Similarly, the compiler does not access the innards of the IDE. The compiler may even be used separately from the IDE. For this example, it does not matter whether the OS is GPL-compatible or not - if so, there is no licensing problem anyway, but if not, because the operating system is not distributed with the apps, distribution falls under the 'major components special exception'.

If you put a GPL app ported to an OS on the same CD as the OS itself, you don't get this special exception. If you put GPLed apps on the same distribution medium as SkyOS, without licencing SkyOS in a GPL-compatible manner, you are distributing these apps illegally.

lj 23:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You do not understand the GPL. You have not read the GPL. You have likely not been involved in any GPL projects. Please go back to trolling on Slashdot and do not waste our time with nonsense. AlistairMcMillan 22:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please explain to me in what way my understanding is incorrect. I'll try to build up my argument from first principles so you can tell me where I'm going wrong.

1 : works that contain GPLed code (works, not necessarily programs, but also compilations of programs) must be "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." (GPL 2b)

2 : A program that links to another program, even at runtime, is considered by the GPL to be part of a larger derivative work, which must be licensed as per 2b (RMS, http://list-archive.xemacs.org/xemacs-beta/199806/msg00523.html )

3 : A GPLed application written for SkyOS links against SkyOSes standard libraries

4 : A GPLed application written for SkyOS is part of a larger derived work which contains the application, and the standard libraries (point 2 and point 3)

5 : A GPLed application must be accompanied by full source, or an offer of such (GPL 3)

6 : The GPLed Skyos application must be accompanied by full source of SkyOS's standard libraries (or, at the very least, the source for every possible system call that it could make)

7: 6 does not apply to standard OS components, unless said components are distributed with the app (GPL3, footnote 1)

8 : GPLed app is distributed with SkyOS, so point 6 does not apply (points 6,7)

9 : GPLed app must therefore be accompanied by full source of standard libraries when distributed with SkyOS (points 8, 5, 4)

10 : SkyOS does not ship source (http://www.skyos.org/faqs.php)

11 : if you cannot fulfil the terms of the GPL, you may not distribute the app (GPL 7)

12 : A CD with both SkyOS and a GPLed application does not fulfil the terms of the GPL by not shipping source for SkyOS's standard libraries, and thus may not legally distribute the GPLed application.

I'm offended by your allegation that I would argue such a point without even reading the GPL; maybe you can show me the error in my understanding of it?

lj 02:50, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

----------

Completely rewritten

Only think left from the fanboyism rewrite is the External Links and the other languages list.

Kiand 15:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is getting rather silly, ain't it? Who are you tp decide that this article is "wrong"? The fact that you state that the SkyOS Team was "spamming" the BeOS dev. mailinglists says it all. That's not just a lie, that's an intentional attack upon SkyOS. Why you attack SkyOS is a complete mystery to me. Jealousy? OSS Zealotry? A combination?

I'll probably learn why in my study at university. Psychology.

--Thom Holwerda

Thom - do you want me to find the mails I got from Kelly asking me to "switch teams" so to speak? It was just BeBits developers with drivers listed, as far as I can could tell. Hence its entirely true and not an attack on SkyOS.

Kiand 17:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since when does asking for help mean "predatory tactics in attempting to obtain developers from BeOS, including spamming all driver developers listed on BeBits."? That line is a direct attack on the SkyOS team. Secondly: the difficulties in obtaining diffs of programmes which have been ported." Got any source of that? Anything at all to back that claim up?

--Thom Holwerda

Yes, I have. OpenTTD. Took me (a team member) somewhere in the region of three weeks to obtain the diffs. Which weren't diffs but a zip of the full directory, although thats not a major problem

Also, "asking for help" by sending unsolicited email from a commercial project = spamming in the EU.

BTW, you've now reached your three-revert limit, and getting someone else to do it for you is sockpuppetry.

Kiand 17:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mmmmm, so, instead of asking for an explanation to the guys if SkyOS, you just start being a donkey here on a free encyclopedia? That's rather childish, now, ain't it? Ah, so it took one person three weeks to get the diffs... Mmm, firstly, three weeks is not long. The GPL says nothing about how long it may take, and three weeks is not long if you take into account that Robert has a full-time job, and outside of that fulltime job codes SkyOS. Secondly, how fair is a test where n=1?

And oh, I wasn't using the revert option, as you may have discovered by now.

--Thom Holwerda

Not using the revert doesn't mean its not a revert. I was using the revert option because its quicker. You're now on the Recent Vandalism page, not that that ever does anything, really...

Also, diffing up: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=SkyOS&diff=0&oldid=6752123

Exactly the same before my rewrite and your last revert. Hence its a revert.

Kiand 17:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So what if I e-mailed developers from BeBits asking if they would be interested in helping to work on a few things for SkyOS? I wasn't asking anyone to "switch teams". That would constitute that I wanted them to not work on BeOS ever again, and solely develop for SkyOS. I couldn't care less if they develop for BeOS, Mac, Windows, or Linux. I was simply asking if they would be interested in helping in a very relevant thing we were working on. Feel free to post my message exactly as I sent it. I already did this on our forums for everyone to see, which is why Thom (rightfully) is saying your accusations in this matter are baseless, he already read the letter in question.

And it took three weeks to get the OpenTTD changes to you? THREE WHOLE ENTIRE LONG WEEKS?! Give me a break. Robert works the equivalent of a 90-hour work week between work and SkyOS. He receives tons and tons and tons of e-mail. And still it only took three weeks to get you what you needed? I'm surprised it didn't take longer.

It's obvious you have problems with SkyOS now, which accounts for your biased editing of the page. As long as you continue to be less than truthful in your reporting about SkyOS on Wikipedia, we will be glad to continue reverting back to a balanced entry.

Balanced entry? You mean one that you've not contributed to obviously.

What does it matter that Robert works a 90 hour week? Clearly the OS is a hobby, but that doesn't give him the right to use that as an excuse to avoid complying with the GPL.

Also, you can only revert three times before its vandalism. Hence I've not reverted from the marketing speil version thats there now to my rewrite as I've done it three times already. Thom has already reverted four times so he's been reported as a vandal.

Also, the two of you might like to notw that you don't need HTML formatting here. Paragraphs are automatic and bolding/italics should be done with Wiki formatting code. Then again, as neither of you are real contributors here (all you've done is revert here and remove relevent info from John Kerry, for instance), you wouldn't have noticed that <-- this is the type of biased, irrelevant nonsense that you posted on the SkyOS Wiki entry. What does what you just posted here have to do with this discussion? I thought we were discussing SkyOS. Now, you are trying to ridicule us. Are your arguments so baseless that you have to resort to attacks like this?

Kiand 18:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to correct myself. You (Hexydes) did make a few non-SkyOS fanboyism related edits a few months ago. Nothing since May though.Kiand 18:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and post the e-mail I sent to BeBits developers. I sent two such e-mails, both of which were similar in wording (I'm not sure which one Kiand received, possibly both). This particular one was for a printing subsystem developer. When reading this letter, please try to determine if, at any time, it appears I am asking BeBits developers to "switch teams", or if I am simply trying to find out if anyone with relevant experience at a well-established development site (which I used to frequent quite a lot in my BeOS days) is interested in helping us out with something:

Hello,

If you are receiving this message, it is because you were listed at BeBits as having written something relevant to printing services or applications. If you do not reply to this message, you will not receive any further e-mails from us.

SkyOS (http://www.skyos.org) is looking for someone with a great deal of experience writing printer-specific code to help develop a printing subsystem for our operating system. Specifically, the ideal candidate will have:

- a very strong understanding and knowledge of the C language
- a very detailed knowledge of what PCL is
- the ability to write printer drivers
- the ability to manage big projects (The entire printer system)
- knowledge of how to design the required communication interfaces between SkyGI (graphics system) --> Printer system
- knowledge of how to design the required communication interfaces between Printer system --> drivers

If you think you fit this skill set, and are interested in developing a printing subsystem for a cutting edge operating system, please respond back, stating your interest.

Thank you for your time. Again, if you do not reply to this message, you will not receive any further e-mails from us.

Regards,

Kelly Rush

That is the letter in it's entirety (minus my removed, non-functioning e-mail address). Feel free to make your own judgements about what our intentions were.

No, I'm just letting you know you're wasting a few seconds with each line/paragraph

Now, what exactly is wrong with my rewrite? Is it not fanactical enough for you? It states the facts, and thats about it. Reduces the screenshots to one. This question goes to Kelly and to Thom

Kiand 18:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1) The GPL says nothing about a timespan between source-code request and source code delivery. Therefore, what justifies your zealotry claim that Robert did not comply to the GPL by giving you the source code three weekas after your request? Please, enlighten me. Besides, a test of n=1 is not statistically significant.

2) John Kerry? I haven't edited his article, and I don't even care about US "politics", since I'm from Europe.

3) It is now more than obvious that you belong to that small militant FSF-inspired group that has nothing better to do than what you are currently doing. I hope you enjoy it.

--Thom Holwerda

Kelly edited John Kerry, not you Again, what relevancy does this have with what we are discussing? Are you making an attempt to "characterize" me? Again, are your arguments so weak that you must attempt to defame me in order to make your cause more successful?

and once again - I am not some OSS nut. I hate the sodding GPL, its too damn restrictive, and I'd never start a new project under it. I do however contribute to existing GPL projects, and it was one of them I obtained the diffs for. I don't see myself as inspired by anyone, but certainly not the FSF.

Kiand 18:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind you can be an "OSS nut" without liking the GPL. There are other OSS licenses around. Open source license -- aphistic 06:15, 24 Oct 2004

Responding to: "What does it matter that Robert works a 90 hour week? Clearly the OS is a hobby, but that doesn't give him the right to use that as an excuse to avoid complying with the GPL."

How was Robert avoiding compliance with the GPL? The GPL makes no attempt to place a timeframe on when you should receive the changed source. Robert's extremely busy schedule isn't an excuse, it is an explanation at why it took three weeks.

Kiand, you refuse to answer my question: "Therefore, what justifies your zealotry claim that Robert did not comply to the GPL by giving you the source code three weekas after your request? Please, enlighten me. "

--Thom Holwerda

Bah! Would you please stop using HTML markup to post here! Paragraphs are AUTOMATIC. Italics are done with '' at the start and end

You were using his schedule as an excuse for the time delay. Explanation/excuse, its the same thing.

Oh, and the Kerry comment was because what you removed basically amounted to vandalism there as well.

He took three weeks, at least. It may have been more but three is a good guess as a start. And it took a lot of chasing. Seemed to me and other team members like there was specific evasion going on

-----

In other words, you cannot back your statement that Robert violated the GPL. Good that that's now cleared up.

--Thom Holwerda

I never said he did. I said there have been accusations he did. Look at any OSNews talkback on SkyOS to find lots of people, people who are not me, accusing it. I just gave my own story, and stated it in my rewrite (that getting diffs from him takes its time)

Kiand 19:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-----

Kiand wrote: "What does it matter that Robert works a 90 hour week? Clearly the OS is a hobby, but that doesn't give him the right to use that as an excuse to avoid complying with the GPL."

Here you say that Robert violated the GPL. But anyway, we just cleared up that you could not back that up, so it is now irrelevant. And because it is irrelevant, it deserves no place in the article. Your second lie was the spamming of the BeOS Dev. list. Kelly posted his email, clearly exposing your lie.

Now, who's the vandalist here? Us, who are trying to put up a balanced article on Wikipedia, or you, who keeps on telling lies about SkyOS?

--Thom Holwerda

-----

So it doesn't matter to you that SkyOS does NOT violate the GPL? You simply write what you hear from other people? What if someone said SkyOS was the third man on the grassy knoll? Would you also include that in your Wikipedia writeup? These people that are claiming SkyOS violates the GPL do not follow SkyOS, are not beta testers, have never even USED SkyOS before, and basically wait for an OSNews article about SkyOS to pop up to claim that it violates the GPL, with absolutely no factual evidence to back it up, simply because they do not care for our project and are attempting to character assassinate us (which, thankfully, 99/100 people see right through). These are the people whose word you are basing your writeup on.

So now you don't even know if the three weeks was how long it took. Maybe it took more? Maybe less? Once again, you aren't basing what you're saying on the actual facts. Now, you claim that three weeks is a long time. I'm pretty sure, considering Robert's circumstances that no one aside from you would consider that a long time, but irregardless of that, please tell us, what do you constitute as an appropriate length of time for the code to be delivered to you? One week? One day? One hour? Instantly? Pre-cognition so that Robert can send the code before you even ask for it? Robert sent the code. If it had taken months, that would be one thing, but honestly, is three weeks really that long? I know you do not want to make any attempt to understand how busy Robert is, but that is a factor. It's not like Robert sits around waiting, hoping for someone to contact him about SkyOS. We get literally hundreds of e-mails per week asking various questions about SkyOS, and all of this is divided between two people, Robert and myself. Sometimes, it takes a little bit of time for us to get to everything. Even new beta tester signups take a week for us to clear and activate.

You stated: "Seemed to me and other team members like there was specific evasion going on". Please, tell me, why would we avoid you? Do you think the OpenTTD code is the secret to what makes SkyOS tick, and if we gave you the code back, our plot would be foiled? Seriously, I want you to entertain me with what purpose you believe we would have of keeping the code from you.

-Kelly

-----

So it doesn't matter to you that SkyOS does NOT violate the GPL?

This might seem odd to you, but: no, it doesn't. This is an encyclopedia article. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to investigate the claims and responses and make a judgement call as to whether SkyOS violates the GPL or not. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report that these people made that claim, and that those SkyOS developers made that response. Preferably with clear links/cites/references as to when and where the claims and responses were made. The facts are, as far as I can see, that complaints have been made that the SkyOS developers do not satisfactorily provide source code for GPL'ed apps that they are distributing, and that the SkyOS developers have responded that all necessary source code is being provided as quickly as humanly possible.

Do you deny that that claim and that response have been made?

Please read the article Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, hopefully it will help you understand that false accusations are just as worthy of being documented on Wikipedia as true ones. —Stormie 01:25, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Stop This

As someone who simply wanted to make use of this article today, can I please ask you to stop this. If you want a battle, go away and do it elsewhere. This is not the place for it. As someone who is completely unbiased (I am not a SkyOS user/developer/hater - I tried it for the first time today) I'd like to make the following observations:

1. In my opinion, the article IS biased and contains more information than I consider "encyclopedic". The replacement wasn't much better.
2. Any debates about GPL compliance have no place here. May I suggest interested parties ask the FSF for clarification as to the issues involved.
3. An "edit war" is not helpful and is causing unnecessary disruption.

Would people be willing to leave the page alone, and let me make it genuinely more balanced? If we can't sort this out, the only option left is to get this page protected. -- David Johnson

Rule Violation

I notice that Thom has now gone to five reverts, two over the suggested limits (three). What I've done has not violated any Wikipedia policies, however promotion and constant reverting do.

Stop whinging about an article not being a perfect promo for you when you're violating rules.

Kiand 22:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a vote is called for?

I don't support the edit war going on or the constant reverting, I think it's getting out of hand and perhaps some form of vote as to what version should be used should be taken.

Frankly, I think the rewrite is just as biased in the other direction (although it can be at least somewhat fixed by removing some of the loaded language). Since they both seem to be about as bad as each other in their own way, I'm personally in favour of keeping the first version, since it's longer and has more content. Shane King 23:26, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

A good idea, to an extent, until you realise that the forum collaborators who wrote this will probably attempt to get other members of their forum to come and vote for the promotional version.

Kiand 23:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are already rules in place about sock puppets (ie non anon user votes, no votes by people with a small number of edits, etc). Shane King 00:19, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

SkyOS Forums Sockpuppetry.

It's great to see that this page now has the wrath of the SkyOS forums (Hexydres, Thom, GregV) coming in here to do nothing but revert. Sockpuppetry in the highest.

Kiand 14:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Kiand, why are you allowed to revert, and call up other people to do so, and we aren't? Can you please explain that to me? You are unable to back ANY of your claims, and yet YOUR version remains up.

Wikipedia, where OSS zealotry is more important than factual information.

Go ahead, block me again, but remember that the SkyOS community is large.

--Thom Holwerda

At no stage have I asked anyone else to revert - check talk pages, etc if you want. However, what goes on in the private forums on SkyOS's site, I don't know. Oh, and large me arse. FreeDOS probably has more users Kiand 16:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since when did I do it because HEXYDES (tricky spelling.. isn't it...)
I did it because I want the truth to be told... no where is SkyOS in violation of the GPL and you blatently lieing (to make yourself look good, to be a jerk, who really knows...) in unexceptable...
GregV

SkyOS did NOT violate GPL

SkyOS did not violate the GPL!

There is no time limit between source request, and receiving
GTK, GAIM, AbiWord, etc's sources are avalable on request (see point 1)
There is no *nix device drivers/moduals/addons embedded inside the SkyOS kernel
Similiar tools are available on SkyOS that are available in *nix: they do not violoate the GPL

Please stop abusing a public resource.

Is it at all possible for you guys to stop being dicks?

I came here once; there was a poorly written article that attacks SkyOS; I hit refresh because I'm about to make that article suck a little less (because that's how Wikipedia works, bai-bee!) and the page has been replaced with a full blown advertisement for SkyOS.

This is a informational public resource, not your goddamn playground where people think they can cleverly slap an advertisement on the Wikipedia and consider it "cute and informational" or where it can be used as a focal point for a smear campaign against someone else.

Seriously, grow up - if none of you people can handle your twitchy fingers and your whole "ooh, i'll make them pay now!!!' attitude, then drop the node entirely and let someone else who is not insane fill in the relevant information.